Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy

The period covered by these six figures marks many transformational changes, among the most important of which is, according to Kissinger, the shift “from a hereditary and aristocratic model of leadership to a middle-class and meritocratic one” (394). In previous centuries, aristocracy was a hereditary system of rulers who had more in common with their counterparts in other nations than members of the lower classes within their own countries. These social networks were meant to limit conflict, which it largely did until World War I. In the wake of that war there was an outburst of populist ideologies, including liberalism and nationalism, which promised to tap the talents of ordinary citizens. Kissinger states that the six leaders profiled are all accordingly figures from middle- or lower-class backgrounds who had to rise through the ranks in one form or another to reach the pinnacle of political power, relying on education, opportune timing, and a bottomless well of confidence in their own abilities to do so. Because they were to some extent outsiders, Kissinger states that “they were often tellers of hard truths” (401). They questioned prevailing modes of orders, articulated daring alternatives, and were not afraid of the divisions such choices would invariably cause.

Kissinger claims that there are alarming signs that in the West, the social conditions for creating a meritocracy may be breaking down. The brightest American students seek to be “globe-trotting corporate executives or professional activists” rather than public servants (404). Technical education has replaced formation of a broader character, Kissinger notes, and so elites do not recognize themselves as having obligations to their fellow citizens. The internet has cheapened discourse and literacy, he adds, so that people are easily tricked into mistaking superficialities for essentials, especially in politics. The “surfeit of information” brought about by the internet has elevated the image above complexity or substance (407), and so people may in fact know less than those without access to databases at the click of a button. For Kissinger, there needs to be a revival of civic virtue, a focus on character, and standing up for what is right because it is right. The explosion of dangerous new technologies such as cyber weapons and artificial intelligence, Kissinger claims, proves that technology is not a panacea, that human judgment must hold sway despite its limitations.

Kissinger then says that a major focal point for these emerging challenges is the burgeoning rivalry between the United States and China, both of which regard themselves as exceptional and whose broad range of interests are bound to clash in many areas. Russia is not as powerful as China, but its geography and sense of mission make it a permanent fixture that must be incorporated into some sense of international order. Contemporary leaders do not need a “detailed vision of how to resolve the dilemmas described here” (414), Kissinger claims, but they do require the vision and character necessary to imagine the path forward and move history forward. Kissinger concludes by noting that difficult times often produce worthy leaders, and so perhaps there is hope that today’s “grave conditions…provide the impetus for societies to insist on meaningful leadership” (415). Societies must have faith in themselves, he says, and they build that faith through the example of their leaders.